tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 12, 2013 7:00am-10:00am EST
"washington journal" is next. >> make no mistake. our path is clear and we are moving forward. every day, more afghans are stepping up and taking responsibility for their own security. as they do, our troops will come home. and our -- this war will come to a responsible and it. -- end. host: good morning and welcome to "the washington journal." we will take a look at what the president had to say yesterday. in "the wall street journal" --
the president declares a transition into an advisory role. we want to find out what you think about what the president had to say about the future of the united states role in afghanistan. the numbers are on the screen if you want to get involved in the conversation. . we also have a special line for people who have served in afghanistan either as the military, contractors, or work in afghanistan with the ngo's. you can also reach us by social
future of the u.s. role comes from melinda in columbus, georgia on the line for democrats. caller: yes, but the people want all of our troops that are in harm's way, no matter where they are at in the world to be brought home. we cannot fight the whole world. that is not the purpose of the united states. host: do you see any role for the u.s. and afghanistan in the future? caller: know. -- no. these people are hard-core religion. they are going to do what they want to do. if they wanted some kind of
joseph from cincinnati, ohio on the line for republicans. caller: hello. how are you doing? i am glad to be able to comment. i think this is a very historic moment. i am proud of obama and karzai getting up there. we have to end the war some time. my thesis is if we have the talent than -- taliban, terrorism has to be fought all over the world. this is the message they are both saying. it is a long drawn out war. it has to end sometime. if we are pulling out a little sooner, there will be critics saying a lot of different
things. i really pray and hope this is successful. the education i think is very important. host: jim from tennessee on the line for independents. caller: i watched the press conference between the two presidents. karzai and his government are one of the most corrupt governments ever. we have lost billions of dollars so they could lie in their coffers. they had the taliban sit down at the table. we will be right back over there. to sit down with them, that is where it all created from. that is where the were spawned from. the taliban suppressed women, they do not even want education or music. we are going to be right back over there. this is ridiculous to sit down at the table with the taliban.
host: so it is better to leave the troops there for now? caller: it sure would be. i just feel like we will be right back over there. it will spawn again. his government cannot stand up on its own. host: we are going to take a break on the conversation regarding the future of the u.s. role in afghanistan to check in with jeremy herb from "the hill" who will be talking to us about the week-long meetings that took place. welcome to"the washington journal." tell us more about the visit by president karzai. who did he see while he was here and what did he get out of his meetings? caller: in addition to meeting with president obama, he had meetings with the pentagon, leon panetta, hillary clinton, and he gave a speech at georgetown
university yesterday. he is looking good for a transition. he wants it just like the united states, to be able to say that he is helping wind down the war and get the u.s. presence lower. one of the two things he said was that our troops would be leaving afghan villages and afghans would have complete control of the detention facilities. those two things are what he can bring back home with them. host: the last caller that was on before we brought you in talk about his concern about the re- emergence of the taliban once u.s. forces are drawn down. is this something that president karzai is concerned about? did he discuss that with president obama and leon panetta? caller:karzai is now supporting
hold and parts of the taliban. this is what is driving the conversation with how many u.s. and nato troops should remain in afghanistan. a lot of defense hawks like lindsey gramm and john mccain are saying if we leave too few troops or no troops it would just let the caliban back in and take control in the race all of the gains the u.s. made over the past decade. -- erase all of the gains the u.s. made it. that is where the debate will be. how many troops stay. host: he spoke about some of the meetings he had. is there anything congress is looking at to try to move the process forward? caller: i know senator mitch mcconnell met with president karzai and then he took a
delegation to afghanistan. the chairman of the armed services committee was also in the afghanistan with senator jack reed. i think congress will be weighing in on the debate. in addition to 2014, the more immediate concern is the way that the u.s. gets to 2014. we have 56,000 troops in afghanistan at now. the president has not said how he is going to wind up at whatever no. he is at in 2014, whether a gradual drop down or a like sum in the military has suggested, keeping a significant force there for the fighting season before you begin to draw down troops. i think that will be the first debate once the president unveils his plan, which he says he will do in the coming weeks. host: jeremy hill is talking to visit to karzai's washington, d.c.
he also spoke at georgetown university this week. what was the significance of that speech as opposed to the meetings he had with official washington? caller: it is interesting he scuttled that speech. he scheduled a friday after his meeting with the president and after the joint press conference. there was not a whole lot of news that came out of it. it is possible that had the meetings not not as well as he had thought, that would give him an opportunity to respond to something. most said there seemed like there was progress between president obama and karzai. one of the big issues is giving u.s. troops immunity from prosecution in afghan courts appear that is an issue that prevented u.s. troops from staying in iraq.
president karzai said because he had concessions, he could not support the idea of u.s. community and he would take it to the people and support of it. it is not a done deal, but that is a step forward, a positive one. host: jeremy herb talking about karzai's visit to d.c. this week. thank you for being here. back to the phones. our discussion on the u.s. role in afghanistan. next, the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i do believe u.s. has a role in the future simply because i know i do not trust the situation.
in the years i have been a citizen in the united states in maryland, i have known of my country to make wise decisions and very careful decisions. i do not believe that it is the best idea to pull all of the troops out of afghanistan. mainly for the reason being the their safety and our safety. i do believe there should be a long time post in afghanistan. i believe it should be a permanent position for some u.s. troops providing the same -- switching up the troops. host: those troops that would stay, what would be their mission or their role?
caller: to be there to be able to predict any of futuristic attacks, any problems and report back to the united states. it is that simple. i feel that we are not saved. i have a cousin that was only 21 that died not during the war. he died may be two years ago because of a car bomb. there are still a lot of active problems in afghanistan that are going on every day. host: we are going to move on to art in petersburg. caller: thank you, c-span. i appreciate what you do for our country and bringing things to light. i have been a legionnaire for 40 years. i read an article where the al
qaeda is researching in afghanistan. what i and seeing from president obama and from karzai i think is a dog and pony show. we are going to have to stay there to maintain what we have done, the lives that have been lost. we may have cut off the head of the snake, but the snake is still a live. host: hold on for a second. stick with me. in "the baltimore sun and," they write that the administration officials have discussed leaving 3000-9000 troops. white house aides have said a complete pullout is possible. he stressed any role would be narrowed to training and counter-terrorism missions. do you think 3000-9000 troops is a good number to leave?
caller: no. more. host: how many? caller: at least 10,000. \ host: let's move on to henry. caller: good morning. my opinion is a quick reference. we are staying in afghanistan if at all because of reasons that have to do with the mineral wealth of afghanistan. i will not read it verbatim and. very few if any americans know this. afghanistan is loaded with minerals. minerals like lithium that are necessary for modern industry in the 21st century. it is the saudi arabian of lithium. it has copper, gold.
afghanistan was accused by american officials of accepting a $30 million bribe. host: so you think the future role is to protect these mineral interests? caller: i would say if you look at a map of afghanistan, i do not think we will be -- i think china that is getting all of its copper from afghanistan has more of an interest that we do. i think al qaeda is -- host: that is henry from new york, new york. from "the new york post." we want to show you a little bit more from what the president had to say at the white house in
announcing the time line for a scaled-back military presence. [video clip] >> as president karzai announces the final -- u.s. forces will move to a support role this spring. our troops will continue to fight a long afghans when needed. let me say this as plainly as i can. starting this spring, our troops will have a different mission. training, advising, assisting, afghan forces. it would be a historic moment and another step toward full afghan sovereignty, something the president cares a lot about as do the afghan people. this sets the stage for the further reduction of coalition forces. we have already reduced our forces to 66,000 troops. i pledge to continue to bring our forces home and a steady
pace. a responsible drawdown to protect the gains our troops of may. host: we're talking about the future of the united states role in afghanistan. the lead role in "the arizona republic" -- mike in virginia on the line for independents. caller: i really believe that they need to give these countries just a little bit more time. one of the problems there is that we actually created the taliban during the afghan and russian wars. host: how much more time? caller: sadly, it will probably take another 50 or more years. these countries still act as if christian countries acted in the 1600's. if somebody acts against their religion they dig a hole and
back to the telethons. andy on the line for democrats. caller: thank you and good morning. i want to commend you for doing a good job and keeping the american people informed. i feel like we need to stay over there because we are keeping the enemy on the run and keeping them over in that area. if we pull out, i feel like it will give the enemy that much more of a strong cold and it will start coming after us again like they had done in 9/11. i think we need to stay over there and keep them in their own country. host: janice from louisiana on the line for democrats. caller: the way i understand it,
we went into afghanistan to rule out allocated, which was a group of arabs and saudi arabian sea. osama bin laden, a saudi arabian, rented some land from a local chief than he was under the belief that this fellow muslim was training young the muslims to defend themselves and their religion. afghanistan that did not have a central government at that time. each city, town, or community was governed by a group of respected elders. the taliban was a part of this type of government. we sided with the taliban when russia invaded. they were taken a back when we invaded their country after 2001.
host: what do you see as the future of the u.s. role? caller: we need to get out immediately. host: memphis tennessee, served in the army and spent some time in afghanistan. kelly, tell us what you did in afghanistan? caller: i was assigned to special ops. what i want to say is, i do not see any reason for us to stay there. i think that when we leave, the taliban and al qaeda will come back. as long as they're given safe haven in pakistan, they're just waiting for us to leave. i do not see any benefit for our country to remain there. host: some of the callers have said we need to keep at least
10,000. some of the stories we have been reading have said anywhere from 3000-6000. you say we should be out of their completely? caller: yes, i think we should just leave. as long as they have one of the most corrupt governments of their -- as long as pakistan allows the taliban and al qaeda safe havens, they are just waiting for us to leave and they will come back in. host: we are going to move on to paul in illinois. paul served as an officer. what kind of work did you do over there? caller: i was army and i work in civil affairs during reconstruction in the 2010 and 2011. host: what kind of response did you get for the reconstructive work you were doing? caller: it was mixed with the
afghan people. in areas interested in the work for reconstruction with medical and education. education is the key to success. one said we have never left the country, i would like to point out there is no military presence in iraq right now. the answer to that question is we have left places completely. we did completely leave vietnam as well. host: your perspective as somebody who has been working on shoring up the hearts and minds of the afghan people, what do you see as the future of the u.s. role? caller: i think there will be a long-term presence both militarily, diplomatically, and socially as well. i think it will become an exchange of educational -- it
will have to be between the two countries. right now there is a 25% literacy rate across the country. if it ever was to stand on its own two feet, we will have to commit ourselves to educating their countries so that they can be able to stand for themselves. that is really the bottom line. iraq has a 75% 80% literacy rate. they are able to move from the bottom up. in afghanistan you do not have that situation. there is a generational effected that needs to be accounted for when you are looking for what the solution is. the solution has to be generational. you have to educate and move from 20% to 40% to 80% in terms of literacy so you have an educated public that will be able to sustain the type programs, development, and the building's -- just the sustainability.
the buildings that is intended to improve their health and education. host: we will leave it there, paul. we want to take a look at this washington post lead story. more from yesterday pose a news conference saying he will back to afghanistan and argue for immunity. [video clip] >> well, the bilateral security
agreement is a in mind for the interest of both countries. the issue of immunity is of a very specific importance for the united states. as was for us, the issue of sovereignty and the detentions and the continued presence of international forces in afghan villages and the conduct of the war itself. with those issues resolved, as we did today, i can go to the afghan people and argue for immunity for u.s. troops enter afghanistan in away that afghan sovereignty will not be compromised, in awaited afghan law will not be compromised. in a way that the provisions
that we arrive at the way our talks will give the united states the satisfaction of what it seeks and will also provide the afghan people the benefits that they are seeking through this partnership and the subsequent agreement. host: we are talking it of the future of the u.s. role of in afghanistan. tony is our next caller on the line for democrats. caller: thank you. good morning. i think you are doing a good job on prevent -- presenting both sides of the question. originally, i was very strongly in favor of the afghanistan campaign. to answer the question, the number of troops -- i think the united states needs to have a presence, but the mission should be defined as educating the people.
the united states has a so-so record when it comes to nation building such as vietnam. i can remember when i was six or seven years old with all of the casualty records coming and being reported at that time. the government has to be able to support itself. right now i do not think the government really has that much of a credibility because of widespread corruption. host: you are talking about educating the people. could that be done with civilians, teachers, people of in the peace corps as opposed to a military presence? caller: to be honest with you, i think it might have a problem with security over there because the border is that pakistan has, letting taliban fighters come in or enemy of the state -- however you want to say it to -- there will have to be a military presence. the number of trips, i am not
sure about that. if you have 3000 troops -- i guess the field troops, the ones who do the fighting, you will have logistics with that. there are a couple of thousand more to support the effort. we are going to have to have a troops enter the field over there. host: kevin in virginia served in the army and will talk to us a little bit about his service. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: thank you. i do not believe we should leave as quickly as we are. there is still a whole lot of objectives that still need to be achieved. understanding our bosses and
tent, the intent of not just the president of the american people. the issue becomes whenever we pull out of an area at -- when ever we leave an area, what ends up happening is the taliban factors come back. they did that because it is the culture of afghanistan. we believe in doing good not to for our country but for the nation. the afghan culture is basically tribal and familiar. host: let me ask you this from your perspective as an army officer. are you enlisted? caller: i would rather not say. host: with your experience, does a continued military presence do anything to change a culture that spans over 2000 or 3000 years? caller: in some places, yes.
because of the culture, it depends on several things. one is how the afghan people see as. for some tribes, they are very supportive. other tribes cannot trust us. some of that is because what is told to them by the taliban. some of it is because some of the things we do it there because we do not understand the culture or because you have some soldiers or even some civilians to do things that are against their culture and understand that. host: we're going to leave that there. this is part of the conversation taking place right now on facebook.
back to the telephones. william in dallas, texas is on the line for independents. caller: to lie. i just want to make the point -- thank you. we were attacked at the trade center because we dropped the ball over here, not overseas. we had ever mentioned about the people planning to fly the planes into -- we had information a but the people
planning to fly the planes into the buildings, but they did not act on it. i am wondering if we are not wasting infinite amounts of blood and money in these countries for things that can be done here in this country. my guess is our intelligence agencies have been protecting us extremely well since the trade center attack. i wish we could pull out of the other countries. the call that mentioned the rare minerals and afghanistan made a very good point. china has contracts on those. sometimes i think we are staying over there to satisfy the paranoia of people like donald runs field, dick cheney. host: from arkansas this morning, your thoughts about the future of the u.s. role in afghanistan. aaron? caller: i appreciate the
opportunity to be able to speak with you. i know it is definitely a very heated debate on what is going on at enter afghanistan, and of course, the wars and conflicts all over. i personally served in iraq and afghanistan. host: what kind of work did you do in afghanistan? caller: i was a bomb hunter. i did route clearance but enter afghanistan and iraq. i left afghanistan in 2010. i heard a lot of debate earlier about our president -- presence and how the people felt about us being there. i got to speak to a lot of local nationals. they believed and trusted in
what we had to say. host: did you feel like you're military presence was helping to build up the trust among the afghan people for the united states, either civilian or military? caller: yes, sir, i do. i believe 100%. i spoke to an afghan national, i spoke to a lot of people within the various tribes. some had a negative feedback, most had positive feedback. they really seem to appreciate the american presence there and what we had to provide for them. what work we tried to do for them to help them. they seem to go out of their way to help us, and we try to go out of our way to help them. host: the this situation is
going to benefit by having a continued u.s. presence in afghanistan? caller: i think it will to various degrees. as far as pulling all of the troops out, i do not believe that is a positive answer. i believe there definitely should be a continuous presence there until we can get some type of established democracy, or what ever you want to call it. host: as we continue our conversation regarding the future of the u.s. role in afghanistan, we will take a look at some other items in the news. this is in "the new york times." he announced on friday he will not seek a sixth term providing
an opening for republicans to cut into the senate majority. he served two terms as governor of west virginia, and it came no surprise after he gave a floor speech that angered the coal industry. he is the first incumbent to announce he will not run until a challenging election cycle for democrats who will be defending a see not only in conservative west virginia, but in republican leaning states like arkansas, alaska, louisiana, and montana. this item was covered by "the wall street journal."
regarding climate change, we are going to have a discussion of in 5-10 minutes talking with david doniger and myron ebell. that is coming up later in this edition of "to the washington journal." back to our conversation, karen is in louisiana on the line for independents and also served in the air force. what did you do enter the air force? caller: 1 was in a partnership education program to teach the afghanis how to maintain their facilities once we evacuate the area. i did that in a few locations. i also serve to do oversight construction projects. pretty big roles. i had a chance to do some face to face with the afghans.
as a woman a military member, i did see a change in culture from previous deployments. i see if we are going to change the mind set completely, it will require a number of years. it will require generations of us being over there. and that is what will have to happen. if we start calling out, it will happen, but it still will be some opportunities for the taliban to come in and resort to hurting those people. host: one of the discussions going on regarding the education, particularly of the girls in afghanistan. as a woman and educator, what did you see that makes you think the culture is changing? caller: i did not see during the time i was in the program and the woman as part of the student
body. we had more men. we have a lot of older men. we had a few younger men. host: what were you teaching? caller: how to maintain facilities. how to take care of the electrical utilities and construction, better materials to use. that is what we talked. the construction fields or engineer fields, women were bad as a visible. host: two items regarding the discussion over guns going on here in washington, both from new york papers. this is from "to the new york post."
back to the telethons. the next call comes from bob in bethlehem, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was listening to the head of afghanistan, but mr. karzai, and the president. he brought up several times about the sovereignty of afghanistan. when in the media had earthquake, the united states sent in a hospital ship to help the people. it was there for over a year. did we take over indonesia? we were there to help, not to take sovereign over another nation. we have no problems here. in the process, i cannot emphasize that we are not there to hurt people.
when you had up in iran, there was an earthquake up in turkey and iran, our troops when up to help the people in iran and they were very satisfied. how many of those -- our troops come back with posttraumatic stress. maybe people will look into it and say, wait a second, this may be a tool against terrorism. host: that is bob. this is the lead from "the baltimore sun."
a 600 page ridge they are taking a 4 million march in pakistan, they have cracked down and literally blocked for almost five days now, electricity, natural gas, everything is gone. trying to keep them away from protesting against what is happening within pakistan. host: are you still in touch with people from pakistan? caller: yes. host: what is their response? do they want to see the minutes of the numbers that we have now or would they like to see the role of the u.s. troops moved back or step down? caller: their interest -- if it
you are on "the washington journal." caller: the comment i would like to make is, i think we should minimize all of our troops in afghanistan and bring our people home. a good idea for when they come home since they are talking about protecting the schools, that will be a good job for the troops coming home. they understand how to prevent terrorism. host: we will move onto cliff from new jersey on the line for republicans. caller: actually it is craig. i am a an american patriot. i voted for george bush, sr., george bush, jr., ronald reagan. i could give a rat's ass about the afghani people. they did not contribute one technical to rebuilding the world trade center. we have no duty to rebuild
afghanistan. i would never send my son there to die for the afghani people. host: we are going to leave it there, craig. we will talk to you a little bit more about what is happening in "the washington journal." coming up next, 2012 was the hottest on record. so is this evidence of global warming? we will have representatives on both sides of the issue. later, the movie "zero dark thirty" is a hit with critics, but not here in washington. why the senate is launching an investigation on how the movie is made. you are watching "the washington journal." we will be back after this break. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> hopkins could read the president's but unlike anyone else. he came as close to anyone -- president's moods unlike anyone else. unlike misses roosevelt, he knew when to be still in the presence of the president, went to press him, when to back off and tell a joke. after he won the election, wendell wilke was in his office.
he said to the president, why do you keep that man so close to you? that man being hopkins. wilke did not like hopkins. roosevelt said, you know, you may be in this office some day and you will understand. he asks for nothing except to serve me. >> trusted adviser, friend, and confidante to fdr, harry hopkins lived in the white house for three years. david roll on "the hopkins touch." on c-span 2. >> hollywood's most famous movie stars leave the film capital to help the government sell war bonds. irene dunne, ronald coleman, all part of a contingent of 50 screen celebrities giving their time and talents to aid the war
effort. >> what we want to look at today is how popular culture presented the war. how was the work presented in movies from the 1940's? how was it presented and comic books? how was it presented an athletic events from the 1930's and 1940's? how was it presented and it can pan alley and music from the 1940's? >> this week, popular culture and world war ii with randy roberts. lectures of enter history tonight at 8:00 and 10:00 eastern on c-span 3. host: we are going to be talking about record heat and weather extremes in 2012 with david doniger. he is the climate and the clean air program policy director.
welcome to the program. among the headlines that have been out this week, this one from the washington post saying that 2012 is the hottest year on record in the contiguous u.s. according to the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. your thoughts about the report. guest: it is getting very hot. it is extreme weather and drought. floods. heat waves. more powerful storms. the signal of extreme weather that american people are getting. this is being driven by the pollution, the carbon pollution that we are putting into the atmosphere year after year. we need to start to curb the pollution. host: we are also joined by myron ebell. your thought about the report. guest: i think it has been hot
in the last year. we had a mild winter last year and to most of the united states and we are having a mild winter this year. however, this past year, if you are talking about global warming rather than a american warning was not particularly unusual. host: an article says high temperatures are due to cyclical weather patterns according to scientists by researchers also say the data provided further compelling evidence of human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to changes in the u.s. climate. your thoughts about the statement. guest: it is not really say very
much. there is natural variability in the climate. most of it is probably cyclical. some of it is probably due to human intervention. primarily the burning of coal and natural gas that produces 85% of our energy and produces carbon dioxide emissions. it does not say which part is more important. does not say what the sensitivity of the climate is to hire carbon dioxide emissions. i think it is a generic statement -- host: is this natural variability or removing in a direction? guest: there was another report
released yesterday. the conclusion there is the climate is changing. is changing for things humans are responsible for. there is strong evidence -- they have double the probability of extreme heat events like the record-breaking summer. page after page of extreme weather impacts directly related to the carbon pollution we have the means to curb this pollution. this report also says that we have a huge increase in temperature coming if we do not change the pattern of pollution. host: we are talking about record extremes in 2012. we have some numbers on the
screen from noaa regarding temperature records. we would like for our viewers and listeners to get involved in the conversation as we show more of the temperature record numbers. the numbers we would like to show you are on the screen. you can also send us messages via twitter, facebook, and email. our first caller is stu on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is the temperature records being presented, we should go ahead and look at global records as we can piece them together over the last 1000 years. and that will give us a true indication of the relevance of
the particular whether we're having this year. over the last 10 years, 20 years, that does not seem to go ahead and have much relevance accept for a very short time period. host: myron ebell, director at the center for energy .nvironment, to stu's , are we looking at too small a time frame either in u.s. history to make an accurate assessment to heat and weather extremes? guest: a number of issues related to the one question. it is easier to know what the last few years are the last 100 years of temperature records are because we have thermometers to run the world. there are not very well placed in many places. there is a lot about adjusting them to get an accurate record. we have a better idea of what the climate has been for the
last 100 years in the past 1000 years. we also have a lot of historical knowledge of climate and large parts of the world going back a couple thousand years, some places even more. we know what is called the medieval warm period and places like europe, china, the central american empires, india was warmer than the period after called the little ice age. . .
weather. it does not have too much significance. host: let's take this call from coleman in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: carbon dioxide is the elixir of life. to say that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we cannot live without carbon dioxide and enter the atmosphere. i work on a project where we are increasing the midgets -- vegetation growth by raising the carbon dioxide by about 2.5 times what it is in the atmosphere. this whole thing --
it to freda synthesize and to grow. -- photosynthesis and to grow. i am afraid david is just wrong. host: before we get to the next caller, let me ask you this. does the presence of too much carbon dioxide make it too difficult for humans to breathe? guest: it becomes toxic when you get around 20,000 parts per million. we are at 390 parts per billion. we have a long way to go. guest: what you get is more smog with other pollutants. that is why we get he waves, the
damage from people pose a health with the suffering and heat. -- people's with suffering and heat. host: let's go to daniel on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. a couple of things. as the son of a prominent chemist, i daresay internationally prominent to a certain degree as an educator. he rose again joe his grave every time he hears people talking about sodium. -- he rolls in his grave that. it is compounds of carbon. these so-called climate changing pollutants, i think there is plenty of research to indicate
they have an insignificant effect on climate change. get on our knees and pay homage and get out of our cars. host: who is your father? caller: dr. henry walton from the university of colorado. he taught in the d.c. done of all places. host: talk to us about what he had to say right up until the education of the sudan. guest: well, my point is that we have the means to curb this pollution. and the key issue for the president as he starts his second term, he's been talking about protecting the planet from the overheating, the dangers to our children and our
grandchildren from climate change. the key question is what is the policy to take. i mention it had car standards. a major achievement. the thing that we're asking the president to do is use his authority he has under the clean air act to set standards to cut the pollution problem. and we can do this in a fair and flexible way and make a huge reduction of it. one fourth reduction in the pollution by 2020 according to a rort -- reported my organization has put together at a much lower cost than anyone expected. and it's time to use the tools we have to combat this problem that faces us right now not just our children and grand chirn but they're even more on firge line than we are.
guest: i think it's ill advised. the fact is that we had a big debate finally after a decade of talking about it in the congress in 2009 and 2010 over enacting cap and trade legislation. that was very narrowly passed in the house. the public reaction was so negative that harry reid the senate majority leader pulled the bill from the floor which was supposed to be passed between the 4th of july recess and august recess and said we'll move to a less controversial subject, health care reform. so i think there is very little public support for this and the way he's going about it is not
as david says inexpensive and easy to do. it's extremely expensive and the fact is that if you think global warming is a problem -- and i don't. but if you think it's a problem this cannot possibly be the way to solve it. we are talking about piddling very small decreases in carbon dioxide emissions where the entire world is having huge increases. by 2035 chinese emissionless historically, the total emission that is china has ever emitt since the beginning of the industrial revolution will surpass the european union. in a few years later they will surpass those of the united states. so we're talking about working in a teacup rather than the entire world here and that's that's what you get from president obama. host: the director at their center for energy and environment. and if you want to find out more about what goes on at the cei you can go to their
website. we're going back to the phones and talk to gary on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. my experience with co2 is like in 1957, on the southeastern ash reel forest right there after you come out of florida. it's off to your left first after you go past the first exit to valdosta georgia. the moss was 2 feet high on the trunks. 50 years later, it was 110, 115 feet high. that's what moss, mold, middleu, pond scum. they like a little more co2. so does poison ivy, mosquitos, ticks. plants do grow better but like grapes they produce less sugar when they have higher co2.
you have more yellow leaves. and i think one of the solutions would be for everybody to grow their grass longer because it would consume more co2 and produce more oxygen. you would have better water retention. aquifer regeneration, water purifyication, more lightning bugs that hate moss and slugs. host: we're going to leave it there. is that the solution? guest: well, i don't think the solution -- i think you want to lock carbon dioxide up out of the atmosphere. that's what coal is. coal is carbon dioxide that used to be in the atmosphere. it was grown in the plants underneath the ground. what we're doing is digging up all that carbon dioxide, or solid or liquid in the form of oil and so on, and we're putting it back in the atmosphere.
we are doing that at such a speed that we are creating the climate change and the dangers that come from it. we're all going to be using fossil fuels for a long time but we need to use them efficiently, use the cleaner ones and bring in the renewable sources of energy as fast as we can. we can do that. it is not expensive. and the united states can be a leader. we are still responsible for a fifth of the annual carbon dioxide input into the atmosphere. and if you look back over time since the industrial revolution, the united states is the number one contributor. the chinese, the indians, the europeans, we can get them all to contribute. but the united states needs to be a leader. that's what we do in the world. host: san antonio, texas on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: ok.
i make -- first off, i am very much in favor of anything we can do against global warming that's been going on forever since the industrial revolution. what i think is missing from the argument is population. the population when i was born in 1951 of the world was about 3 billion people. and today it is over 8 or over 7, by the time i die it is expected to be 9. so things like co2 and emissions it's not natural the amount we're putting in. but if there was just 1 million people in the world it wouldn't be any problem at all. guest: host: your thoughts about what our last caller had to say? more people more heat. guest: i think this is a very big issue that would take a while for us to sort out but i don't think that world has too
many people. i think people are -- they have minds and ideas and will power as well as being consumers and having bellies. so i think we've had a lot more innovation in the world as there have been more people thinking about how to solve problems, how to create wealth. part of that is of course we have to work in free markets and politically free societies that have strong rule of law and property rights but i think in those areas where we have more population we're having a much better climate for innovation and in fact part of that innovation is solving real environmental problems instead of what i consider essentially i don't want to say phony but an overhyped problem. and i would just like to show you we've got a lot of talk about noaa and climate reports. this is the english temperature
data since 1998 to 2012 and you'll see the data sets we have more extreme weather because of higher temperatures. in fact the last 15 years we haven't had higher temperatures globally. so the reason -- i don't believe we are having more extreme events or more intense storms. but if we are it can't possibly be due to higher temperatures because as the office said just over the christmas holiday, all of our predictions that we've been making for the last 20 years every time we've been wrong. we've overestimated the warming and so we now think that not only are we having had 15 years of stable essentially stable temperatures but we don't think there will be any significant warming for the next 5 years. so 20 years is a long time compared to these claims about this last year was the hottest year on record in the united states. host: first, your response
regarding the last caller's discussion on population. and then your thoughts on the numbers here presented. guest: i believe in innovation, the rule of law, private property, the system of government and the system of the economy that we have it's very productive. but actually we're also at the same time we're very wasteful. so if you have 7 billion people on the planet and they waste energy or they use energy inefficiently as we do, we are going to have very serious climate change consequences from that. that's why it would be great to use our ingenuity, our drive, our technology to use the energy that we need more efficiently. you can get by with the same amount of light with lightbulbs that use less energy. the refrigerator you buy in the store today uses half of the
electricity of the refrigerator 20 years ago. this is because of standards. this is not just because of free enterprise itself but guided by concern for what the implications are for the air and water and the energy use we have smart standards and we need to do that in order to make this planet work for that many people. zool greg in west virginia on our line for republicans. you're on the "washington journal." caller: i'm a first-time caller so i'm a little nervous. host: you're going to be fine. what's your question or comment? caller: i do not believe in the global warmling myself i believe it's a money racket and political thing. i believe the jet stream has construed weather the last couple of years you see how the jet stream has changed and they have a thing experimently built up in alaska i was watching
that supposedly controls the jet stream. i don't know whether the guys you have have heard about that but that was the comment that i was going to make. host: david. caller: research including in this national climate is the jet stream is changing but not because people have a machine in alaska. it's because the arctic is warming. and the jet stream's position is determined by the weather patterns in the arctic. what happens in the arctic doesn't stay in the arctic. it's getting warm there. the ice is melting. the open ocean is darker, it absorbs more heat so it gets warmer and it changes the weather. now, it's not always to make it warmer. it's very, very cold in siberia right now. it's incredibly hot in australia right now as well as the whacky weather that we have
here in the united states. we are used to a relatively stable climate. this is what minor keeps telling us don't -- my ron keeps telling us. we built cities on the water's edge. but as the water's edges move then our cities are in peril. we have agriculture in the midwest and we built up huge cities in the southwest because we felt we had enough water. if the water patterns change, those investments are really at risk. and what we're saying is let's slow down the input of the carbon dioxide pollution, which is driving this even faster. it's only prudent. host: we've got another map here from the national oshianition and atmospheric administration talking about significant u.s. weather and climate events for 2012. pick out where you live and see what kind of events you've had up in 2012.
in the northeast the post propcal cyclone sandy made landful with sustained winds record storm surge along new jersey and new york coast along with heavy rain and snow. the drought peaked in july with over 06% pdsi as the nation's experiencing drought conditions compared to the episodes of the 1950s. there's all orts of weather and climate activities on the man there from one end of the country to the other. so it's not for climate change and global warming, what in your opinion is causing these weather occurrences?
guest: we had droughts before. you said this drought was comparable to the drought in the 1950s. we had bigger droughts in the 1930s, the dust bowl years. i grew up in the pacific northwest. we had terrible droughts when i was growing up. it's warmling up for a long period and coming down in the northwest in the last few years there's been lots of rain and lots of snowfall. the weather is changing all the time. but it isn't all going in one direction. there are droughts every year in parts of the world. there are record high temperatures, there are record low temperatures. we're in the low phase of atlantic hurricanes right now. in fact as you said sandy was not a hurricane by the time it hit new york city. it was a tropical storm. so we've had very few compared to previous decades, we've had very few big hurricanes hit the united states in the last few years. david keeps talking about sea level rise. yes, they've been rising on and off at varying rates since the
end of the last ice age until the next ice age starts and sea levels will drop very quickly in just 100 or 200 years many, many feet. but sea level rises in the 20th century between 7 and 8 inches. current it's been going up at about 7 or 8 inches per century. so the rate has not increased. the projections, the models that's what david is talking about when he says sea levels could go up a lot. yes, some models say it's going to go up but if you look at the international -- intergovernment al panel they lowered their projection for the 21st century down to 13 inches. so that is a little more than the 7 to 8 inches in the 0th century but it isn't this many feet that new york is going to be flooded that david keeps
threatening, which is just silly. host: we've got to take this call from joan in new york on our line from independents. caller: both of these people have their own agendas to sell. and mr. bell is representing some businesses and the enterprise institute. but nobody has mentioned about beef farming adding more to co2 than all the cars and refrigerators in the country. guest: well, in terms of animals, meat production, there is energy use and there is methane which is another one of these heat hch trapping gases that is produced in that process. we can produce meat efficiently or inefficiently. and i'm not going to go into it further than that. but the main thing is still the burning of the few fuel.
and i have to go back to the sea level. the national climate assessment released yesterday it's a draft, people want comment from scientists, from citizens. but it's a very serious assessment by u.s. scientists of these climate change risks. here's what it says about sea level. sea level is projected to rise by another 1 to 4 feet in this century. what are we looking at? what do we have to expect for our beaches and our sea walls? how bad will the storm surges be? it is not prudent to pretend that this is just a little variation. there is a trend here and we have the responsibility for the trend and how fast it proceeds.
that's why it's so important to curb the pollution that's driving this and that's why we are asking the president to fire up on the car standards with power plants standards and he will have dealt with two thirds of the pollution that's driving this problem from the two thirds of the american contributions of this problem and we can be a leader in the world again. host: in december e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson announced that she will be stepping down, sets the stage for a confirmation fight that will be a forum for larger debate about the agency's role particularly with regard to climate change. david, very quickly, what do you want to see in the next e.p.a. administrator? if you've got a person guest: there are a lot of people people that can run the epa.
we trust the president to pick a good person. what disturbs me is the confirmation process, which was supposed to be about if a person is qualified of the president's choosing is in the position, it has become a hostage as taking exercise. many positions remain unfilled. it is a way some people in congress are trying to keep the government from operating. host: myron ebell, your thoughts about the next administrator? guest: president obama is not going to nominate anyone i think would be good. the point is the epa administrator does what the president wants and what the congress to relax. it is a managerial job. the epa administrator can
recommend policy. at the end of the day, if the president says i do not like what you are doing, the administrator will not do it. if the congress as we will not appropriate money for that, it will not be done. the problem we face is the epa, because cap-and-trade legislation was defeated, a e.p.a. has tried to implement that anti-energy agenda through the clean air act. all these regulations are expensive and clumsy. they are not going to do what they are designed to do. they will have great economic damage. we are already seeing that. host: let's take this call from patty. caller: i am kind of astounded so-called fox. in my job, i interact with
global experts on many issues, including climate change most of the people i interact with a round of world are leading security people from their countries. we bring in outside experts to speak. host: i need you to cut to get negative chase -- i need you to cut to the chase. caller: there is a website that will lay out the steps in great detail. climatereality.org. it is unbelievable to me there are still people the nine this. our military has taken the lead to try to address it by adopting clean fuel and supplying the airplanes with biofuels. host: we will leave it there. talk to us about climate change in terms of national security concerns. guest: i think the claims that
climate change is going to have a large national security implications is over- exaggerated. i think the main problem is what the world with less access to affordable energy will look like. we have a huge national security concerns when people run out of energy or cannot afford energy. it creates instability. our ethanol mandate is cutting conquered around the world. if you do not think hunger is the source of political instability and suffering, you do not understand that people who are hungry get angry. our policy is to force a huge ethanol mandate to turn corn into ethanol and put it in our gasoline is causing huge increases in food prices and run the world. that is increasing hunger. i think that is a real national
security concern. guest: i think you will find we have common ground but the ethanol subsidies are not a good idea. it is feeling instability in the world. if you look at eastern africa, droughts in africa. people are competing over water and scarce resources. it is exacerbated by drought and the spreading of the desert. the military has done an assessment of for the throats of sea level rise and address can exacerbate local and stability and create security problems. that is why the military believes this is a serious security problem, a threat multiplier, climate change. that is why they are concerned about it. host: david doniger and myron ebell, thank you very much for being on "washington journal."
coming up, mark hosenball of reuters will be joining us to talk about why the senate is giving the movie "zero dark thirty" a big thumbs down. sarah klein will join us for a closer look at food safety measures. that is coming up on this edition of the "washington journal." today is saturday, january 12. we will be back after this break. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> if you ask how many people
would describe themselves since -- as libertarian, he might be getting 15%. if you give people questions about different ideological things, depending on which poll you are looking at, you get up to maybe 30% of americans calling themselves libertarian. if you asked if you are economically conservative but socially liberal, over half of americans say that is what they are. just because people say these things does not mean they believe them. if you ask most americans if they want smaller government, they say yes. they say they want government to spend less money. if you ask them to cut a budget item, they do not want to cut anything. it is not clear if they really believe in it. i would have to say as low as
10% and as high as 30%. if libertarians were political, they could be a big movement. it could be a big group of people with a shared ideology that could have a lot of influence in politics. her various reasons, they are not organized right now. >> jason brennan on what you might not know. >> student entries with your message to the president are due by friday for your chance at the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prices. -- there is $50,000 in total prizes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: mark hosenball is here to talk about a possible senate investigation of the cia's role in the new movie "zero dark
thirty." in his article last week, a senate panel to examine this cia contacts with "zero dark thirty" film makers. what is it the senators are concerned about regarding this movie and the alleged cooperation between the cia and the directors and producers? guest: it is about two sets of things. democratic senators -- all the senators on the intelligence committee are concerned as to whether the cia and pentagon leaked and made available to the filmmakers classified information, secrets about cia
operations, secrets about the operation to track and kill osama bin laden, secrets about the identities of the undercover officers, secrets about procedures or systems u.s. intelligence agencies use to track and find people and maybe kill them in some situations. democratic senators on the committee, most notably senator dianne feinstein, are concerned there are scenes in the film in which prisoners held by the cia are subjected to what the cia calls enhanced interrogation techniques and what some people call it torture. members of the senate call it torture. dianne feinstein is concerned
the filmmakers got into their heads to put these scenes into the film because the cia told them to or told them torture were. she has been conducting a long investigation into the cia's interrogation program and has concluded torture did not work. there is a big dispute between what she perceives the film says and what she believes the results of the cia's interrogation program work. host: we have the letter written on december 19 of last year to the chairman and ceo of sony pictures and the distributors of the film. this is signed by the senators. they write that we understand
to the killing of osama bin laden. you would not really need the cia cooperation. guest: you are right. this is a strange situation. the film is fiction. the five people in that are phenomenally glamorized. a lot of the most effective and legendary real spies from history are fat guys that speak a lot of languages. this film centers around a beautiful cia analyst who is obsessive and runs the show. things do not always work like that. in one of the scenes, it shows the cia's handsome station chief in pakistan. maybe he is really handsome.
in the film, the pen has a cia logo that is very conspicuous. i do not think i have seen one using those. they do not go around advertising. that is the whole thing about spying, you are not supposed to be so conspicuous about it. the idea that the film is a little representation of what the cia does and how they tracked and killed osama bin laden is an exaggeration. there are dramatic elements in the film. the film is traumatized. as you read in the letter, the film does portray -- the film is dramatized. as you read in the letter, the film does portray them getting information using torture from a prisoner. from what i took away from it, it does not say that torture was
critical to the finding osama bin laden. that is a little bit of exaggeration or jumping to conclusions by the senators. there certainly are people that worked on the cia interrogations program that believe ardently these enhanced interrogation methods did lead to the production of information that led to osama bin laden and other terrorists. that is how they justify those things. it is truthful of the filmmakers to represent people involved in the caa -- cia believed it was productive and the torture produced useful information. host: we're talking with mark hosenball of reuters about a senate investigation into the cia's role in "zero dark thirty
." if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on the screen. before we get to the calls and messages, tell us what official contact there was between the director kathryn bigelow and the screenwriter of this movie mark boal. they did have cooperation with the cia? guest: the cia and pentagon. judicial watch put in a freedom of information request to the pentagon and cia for records of
contact between the filmmakers and those agencies. they came up with a stack of papers about that day. -- about that big. they show the filmmakers did extensive access. they got a 14-page transcript of an interview with the head of intelligence at the pentagon. i do not know that he turned over classified information, but he was a bit starstruck by these people. you can almost see cogs going around in his brain thinking about how he might be portrayed in the film. i do not know that he is portrayed in the film. the filmmakers spent a day or two at the cia headquarters in virginia. they met with the current acting director of the cia who was then deputy director of the cia. he was involved in the osama bin
laden hunt. they did have extensive access. the cia documents on this are fairly reactive -- redactive and censored. that suggests there is classified information. it may just be the identities of undercover people. the fact the government did not release the entire text of the documents does suggest the filmmakers had access to some information that was not normally available to the public. they almost certainly talk to former officials who are not necessarily subject to the same restrictions current officials are. there is a significant body of former officials that worked on
counter-terrorism operations after 9/11 that do believe the cia interrogation program did produce useful information that led to significant breakthroughs. host: our first call comes from cindy in utah on the line for democrats. caller: i think people are aware americans have experienced high- pitched frequencies, sleep deprivation, and ostracism from their neighbors. the enhanced techniques are regular protocol for overseas as well as within the u.s. against arab-americans. host: just arab-americans'? it sells like to have some experience with this.
caller: -- it sounds like you have some experience with this. caller: 100% over the last four years. they were given grant money for the local police to learn to fly drones and satellites. host: mark hosenball, is this a protocol? guest: i am not sure what she is talking about. i think she is completing think she read in the newspaper and on strange websites. there are fusion centers around the country which are supposed to collect and put together information from various different sources about potential terrorist threats. they do not go around torture and people were subjected --
were subjected them to enhance interrogation techniques. host: the concern of the senators is the film, viewers would walk away with the impression that enhanced techniques or torture lead to somebody saying, this is where you can find osama bin laden. that is not necessarily clear in the movie. guest: in my opinion, it is not totally clear. there are scenes in the movie where people are tortured and where they give the information that could be construed as being material to finding osama bin laden. in my opinion, it does say there was only one source for the information that led to osama bin laden and that source was torture. the film is ambiguous on that. people could conclude the film
suggests torture played a role in finding osama bin laden. if you talk to people involved in the hunt for osama bin laden, they will say it did. whether that is good and bad -- good or bad, i do not know. people involved in the hunt for osama bin laden believe this program produced useful information. i am just telling you what the witnesses say. host: we have a tweet that says the movie glorifies torture. your thoughts? guest: has this person seen the film? i am not sure they glorified torture. it does imply torture in some situations might be effective. one of the problems with the ca program is they never did a proper scientific or systematic
evaluation as to the effectiveness of the program and whether it produced more bad information than good. it did produce meant -- bad information and lead people to embark on wild goose chases for people attempting to attack the united states with weapons that did not exist. one of the people picked up, a terrorism suspect subjected to a rendition, i think this person was taken to libya and tortured there. he gave up information allegedly linking osama -- said on hussein to weapons of mass destruction and 9/11. it was all made up. he said he made up because he
was being tortured. that is certainly a problem with enhanced interrogation methods and torture. what is scandalous about the way the u.s. government handle that is they never evaluated in a systematic way whether this work or not. host: we're talking with mark hosenball about the cia's role in "zero dark thirty." george, go ahead. caller: mr. hosenball, but was a good explanation of the controversy. is there any political benefit coming from this? with the senate taking this on have any political benefit? i do not think this movie could get better publicity. it is fantastic.
what are the political ramifications of creating this controversy by the senate? guest: i think that is a good question. the more you see this, the more you think they could have better things to be doing on capitol hill. is this really just incredibly useful promotion for the filmmakers? i do not know that i could say it any better than that. it is a very big promotion for the film. i think there is a serious question as to whether this is a serious political issue. it is a film. it is dramatized. it is based loosely on real events. it tries to portray things that happened over 12 years or whatever in 2.5 hours dramatically.
it is a film. it is dramatized. they are actors. the idea the politicians would be investigating the film, there is sort of an alice in wonderland quality, there is some absurdities. i do wonder if there are better things the politicians could be doing. host: this tweet goes along similar lines. our next call comes from jeff from west virginia on the line for independents. caller: i seen her first movie "the hurt locker." it portrayed america in the weird light. has anybody look into the money behind the movie and maybe ties
to political groups? maybe this could be a propaganda type film. guest: i do not think it is a propaganda type film. i think it is hollywood entertainment. i did not see the other movie so i cannot comment on that. there are some tie-ins between the film and companies that make [indiscernible] there may be commercial tie-ins even if the beneficial -- the beneficiary is charity. there are connections between the filmmakers and agencies involved in helping them put
together a film. i would point out i attended two different film premieres with in the last three or four months. one was in october for the see a film called "-- the cia film called "argo" about how they smuggled the amounts -- smuggled diplomats out of iran with other diplomats were held by iranian thugs at the american embassy in tehran. i went to this premiere in washington at the canadian embassy. i walked in expecting to see a
lot of journalist friends of mine. i did not see very many people i knew it initially. then i began to notice there were intelligence people i knew, medium-level officials. when ben affleck and another after arrived, they have distinguished company including the then-director of the ca david petraeus -- of the cia david petraeus and other officials. it was a fancy premier for this film. from the canadian embassy, they put us on buses and took us to a local cinema. i watched the film there. this is a high-powered premiere
for the film involving spas that supposedly cooperating. i went to the museum in washington for "zero dark thirty." they had rows of seats mark reserved. those were largely empty. i saw many journalists i knew. i did not see any intelligence people i knew at all. that does not mean there were not intelligent people there. they could have been under cover. but it was not people i knew. it was not the current acting director of the cia or the intelligence chief of the pentagon. i did see an aide to hillary clinton, but no intelligence people. i made some inquiries the next day because i was wondering if intelligence people had been invited and not show up because
of the controversy. i was told yes, intelligent people were invited and they did not show up. when i asked people in the intelligence committee about this, -- intelligence committee about this, they said they did not think it is a tale of two premiere's. there was a different response to these two films given the content of the film. there was no torture, interrogation scenes in the ben affleck film. "zero dark thirty" was a little bit more messy. the intelligence people who cooperated with the filmmakers there seem to be more hesitant, very hesitant to turn up to celebrate their handiwork. host: we're talking with mark
hosenball of reuters, the cia's role in the new movie "zero dark thirty." a tweet, it is a lousy movie. it would have been forgotten by now if feinstein would just leave it be. andrew is on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. how do address the fact that the actual interrogation does not actually yield a good stream of information? the filmmakers were asked to put a preface on this film stating that it does not really reflect an actual situation or true situation. they were asked to do that because of the intelligence was primarily gathered to capture,
to kill bin laden using more nominal techniques, and also the fact that many of us feel we are subject to our soldiers to the techniques, -- subjecting tehseldiers eto thesto hese techniques, and we are glorifying them. people in the senate see the full information that we will never see. guest: i speak to people who are involved in the investigation of this film. some of the people in congress are complaining the administration is not being entirely forthcoming with them, providing information and documentation about what went on
with the film. you read earlier, the december to the cia.ter the send another letter on the 30th saying, we want -- they sent another letter on the 30th st., we want more information. the fact they had to send two letters, they did not get the information they want. did not have as much access to information as the caller might think. host: this is to michael morell, acting director at the central intelligence agency. write, you state that "the film creates a strong impression that enhanced interrogation techniques" were "the key to
hearings, i am a little bit skeptical. there is a ridiculous quality to this whole issue. there's a question in my mind as to how appropriate is for the senate to hold a public investigation into a film. i remember attending a hearing on the house side a few years ago where they had roger clemens along with his former trainer accused him of using steroids. they got him to say that he never used steroids. this led to an indictment of roger clemens. i think it was two trials, in which they could not convict a roger clemens. it was one of the most well attended trials.
i remember thinking, is the stuff that congress should be spending a lot of time on? in the case of this poem, it is a serious question. host: a tweet, part-time for senate hearing over a movie -- perfect time for senate hearing over a movie. a caller on a republican line. caller: there is no way the cia will go ahead and divulge any information to the film maker unless they have the green light from the white house, is that right? guest: not entirely right in this case. the available records that have been made public under the freedom of information act seemed to suggest that the cia, maybe the pentagon actually engaged with the filmmakers before the white house got involved. it does appear to be the case
that at some point after these agencies engaged directly with the filmmakers, senior white house officials probably met with and talk to the filmmakers. the white house is not on involved here. from the sounds of things, they did not instigate it. -- uninvolved here. from the sounds of things, they did not instigated. -- instigate it. dan is on our line for independence. -- independents. caller: i have not seen the film. i have read reviews. i have talked to people that have seen it. clearly, it kind of justifies torture. it justifies in a way that it
can help keep us safe. it is an actual way to get good information. i used to live in salem, massachusetts. in salem, massachusetts, if someone came into town hall and said, hey, this lady over here is a witch, and got enough people to say that young, we think she is which, they simulate to drowning her until she would admit she is a whicit, and then drown her. and united statein the united sd not be used in a court of law. we have this thing called habeas corpus that we decide to throw out the window. it seems what we're doing in the united states is saying, we're all good here because we're americans, as we could do what
ever we want to and the other humans -- and we can do whatever we want to to any other human spiris. host: talk to us about something also being looked at by the senate intelligence committee. guest: this is an investigation investigation into what essentially was a consolidated cia program that began after 9/11 which involved interrogation, including alleged torture. rendition, and the operation of secret prisons where some of this took place. rendition is extraditing someone from one country to another. extradition usually involves someone appearing before a judge, some sort of regular
legal court proceeding were some evidence is tested to see whether it is legitimate or not. in the case of rendition, the u.s. will just pick up people and move them to third countries, often were the would be really, really badly treated. in some cases, to death. this is one of the things the senate is investigating. the senate intelligence committee has been i conducting this investigation for three and a half years. they have been through something like 3 million pages of original documentation, the minute by minute records of the people doing the interrogations' and cia headquarters.
they're written a report based on these 6 million pages of evidence. which the committee has approved, in a secret vote, and an incentive to the intelligence agencies for comment very recently. one of the big issues with this is that everything is super classified, and it is unclear whether any members of the public will ever see any of this public forum. host: we have got another tweet. our next call comes from carlos and virginia, on our line for independents. caller: i have seen the films. i saw "argo." class nassau "zero dark thirty -- last night i saw "zero dark
thirty." it is fantastic. i was with the intelligence agency. i was in the right and administration as assistant secretary. -- reagan administration as assistant secretary. when we have a history of cooperation with the part of defense and the central intelligence agency and film industry -- it is important to have some degree of authenticity. those are lucian's. -- illusions.illusion members of congress want to game the system. i want to leave this alone. thisink we should leave them
alone. winston churchill said, in times of war, the truth is so precious that it has to be protected by a bodyguard of lies. if one has to understand the culture. in world war ii, the brits would deliberately give spies the wrong information so when they were caught and interrogated, they would give up the wrong information. if you look at the israelis, they have mastered the art of interrogation without resorting to violence. in the passion, in the heat of an operational situation, people are going to do things you simply cannot control. host: of we will leave it there. mark hosenball, your thoughts. guest: think the gentleman has a point there. it is a film. it is a drama.
it is attempting to dramatize things. the real business of intelligence, like the real business of journalism, has many moments -- some moments of enormous excitement, if not fear and terror, but many more moments of boring drudgery. a lot of intelligence is putting together -- incredibly dull. intelligence gathering is dull. the whole part of the film is to sort of inflate things that went over several years and presented in a form that will keep the audience's attention for two and a half hours.
i agree with the caller that you should take this stuff not as literal truth. it is a bit of entertainment. it does affect the way the public perceives the government's activities up to a point, but the public is smart enough to realize that the film is traumatized. host: we have got a treat. -- tweet. our last call from bob be in richmond, ky. -- kentucky. caller: i find it ludicrous: this film is being critiqued and looked at by the cia or whomever.
it is a film, first of all. the fact is, we do not know what happened at guantanamo bay and the other prisons holding terrorists. we do not know what has been done. this is a portrayal. host: mark hosenball of reuters, if there are hearings, are we likely to see the acting director of the cia, the people of the cia who were involved with the filmmakers, or the filmmakers themselves? guest: there's very little likelihood that you'll ever see the film makers call before congress. i did not know the -- congress can call anyone want, but it would make fools of themselves by doing that.
if there were hearings, the might want to call some officials, because they certainly met with the filmmakers. host: mark hosenball of reutes rs, senior national security correspondent. "zero dark thirty" at a theater near you. coming up after the break, sarah klein will join us for a closer look at new food safety regulations proposed by the fda this week. you're watching dave "washington journal." we'll be right back after this break.
>> hollywood's most famous movie stars leave the capital to help the government sell war bonds. -- lead the capital to help the government sold war bonds. 50 theme to a celebrity's giving their time and talents. >> how was the were presented in movies from the 1940's? how was it presented in comic books from the 1940's? how was it presented in athletic events from the 1930's an 1940's? how was it presented in tin pan alley in music in the 1940's? >> popular characulture and word war ii, tonight on c-span3.
>> he could read the presidents moveods. he came as close to anyone as to gaining admittance into roosevelt's heavily forested interior. he knew when to be still in the presence of the president, when to present, when to back off until a joke. after he won the election, the one he beat remained in the office and they remained friends. he said to the president, why do you keep that man so close to you? that man being hopkins. roosevelt said, you may be in
this office some day, and you will understand. he asks for nothing, but to serve me. >> harry hopkins lived in the white house. david roll on "the hopkins touch." c-span2. host: sarah klein is here to talk to us about fda proposals for new food safety rules. welcome to the program. the u.s. food and drug administration proposed two new food sector rose. -- food safety rules.
tellus, what are these two new rules and how are they supposed to make our food safer? guest: 48 million americans are getting sick from food each year. a% of the food in our country is regulated by the fda -- 80% of the food in our country is regulated by the fda. the meat and poultry cases in the grocery stores are usda. the stuff we're talking about is everything else. produce, canned soups, everything in the middle. that does create a funny situation when you have fda regulating cheese pizza and usda regulating pepperoni pizza, but that is the way it is. what these rules are designed to do is turn the u.s. day from what it has historically been, which is about reaction. an agency that said,said
let's try to figure out the problem. now we're looking at being more preventative. what are the potential risks with the food reregulate, and how can we minimize those risks so consumers do not get sick. we have to produce safe to roll and a preventive controls and rules for processed food. -- safety rule and preventative controls and rules for processed food. there will be rules for farmers that govern everything from water, health and hygiene of former workers. these are all input into the system, all of which can bring risk into the product. there been a series of
guidelines, guidances for farmers to follow. many of them are falling much of the rules that will be enshrined here in the regulation -- following much of the rules so be enshrined here in the regulation. this is the first time the fda is saying, we need to take a comprehensive look at farms. on the preventative control for processed foods side, that means anybody in a commercial enterprise preparing fda regulated food that is processed -- anything that is going to be frozen or canned or combined with other foods, these enterprises will need to follow something that is more of a food safety plan. identifying the risks in their facility, looking at where there are potentials for contamination, whether it is from the food that comes right to it from the farm, or later
and processing, during a wash step, a cooking step. wherever there is potential for problems. those agencies will have to take risksate steps to prevent the and verify that they are doing them. host: a food safety attorney at the center for science in the public interest, sarah klein. we're talking about fda proposals for food safety rules. the numbers are there on the screen, along with the center's website. reach out to us via social media, twitter, and facebook.
regarding the preventative food- processing part of this, what kind of verifications' is the fda going to lock on to the folks that are processing? guest: enforcement is always a big question for fda. the agency does not have the resources or manpower to do verification and inspection said everett facility. we've got thousands upon thousands of facilities in the u.s. and abroad. fda is looking at ways of involving the states and a cooperative effort. many of these businesses are already inspected by state health departments or state departments of agriculture. fda will bekia collaborative way with the states to ensure that everyone is being inspected, verified,
audited up to the same standards. fda will not be on site during all the inspections themselves, as usda is, but it will have a much stronger hand in what the states are looking at and may be picking up some of the inspections themselves. host: our first call comes from beverly in pennsylvania on our line for independents. caller: good morning. 14 years ago, i had my first episode. it took me nine years to figure out what was causing it. too much sodium. i have since stopped, and for six years now, have not had an episode. i do not need anything processed. -- eat anything processed.
processed food tastes good. anytime i keep the next day, i have problems. -- cheat, the next day i have problems. if you cannot renounce the ingredients -- pronounced the ingredients in it, do not buy it. look at our kids. they came out with a lunchab les. that is true that should be refrigerated, yet they do not have a refrigerated. to of got to ask the question why. cspi has been battling against sodium for years. we're working hard to get companies to reduce the amount of sodium hidden and products,
and tickethe consumers to eat more fresh foods. processed goods have a lot of chemicals. it is true that those things can cause long-term health consequences. the particular rose in front of us right now are not dealing with long-term health consequences, but acute bacteria that arises, something you cannot read on a label. consumers are facing risks from two different fronts when it comes to foods. the long-term health consequences of some of the on healthy choices on the market today, but also facing these hidden dangers from contamination. consumers are not making a choice there. you do not know if that food is
contaminated. with raw produce albums, they're they're designed to be, eaten fresh. host: this would be like when they found salmonella in peanut butter? guest: absolutely. it is a perfect example of one of the issues that would be covered here under the preventive controls rule. with also list list area in we also list listeria in cantaloupes. a variety of other foods. the industry does not like these outbreaks and recalls in there. -- either.
the industry recognizes it is time to get stronger rules in place. no more guidelines were some of the industry may be following it, and others may not. time to raise that consumer confidence number. host: the call on our line for democrats. caller: the hormones that are included in trying to grow these animals faster and stronger so they can distribute them faster, but also translates to vegetables as well. we use their manure for fertilization. the biggest problem is, the cashier's handle money and your food. there is more disease on the cash that goes hand to hand from person to person than any other thing that would ever come from
any distribution company. i think the regulation should be on the grocery stores for having separate people swept the handle the food and money. guest: even though fda does not regulate the meat products that come from animals, fda does have a very important role to play in what goes into those animals one are being raised. fda is responsible for animal feed. anything given to an animal in their food, whether antibiotic, hormone, growth promoter, is regulated by fda. they are not covered by these rules, but fda is looking at ways to mantises problem. -- manage this problem. when you treat many, many animals with an antibiotic that
is also used in human medicine, but you do is create antibiotic resistance. that is when we hear about a losses occurring in consumers that cannot be treated or treated well with the antibiotics currently available on the market. this is a problem that fda has got to get out in front of. it has been on the radar screen for decades. fda has been sued over it, over their inaction on this issue. the recently released a voluntary guidelines that aim to ask the industry to dial back on the amount of antibiotics and types of antibiotics they're using for prevention and animals. animals should be treated with antibiotics when there are sick. that is humane and what is required under the law. this preventive use of antibiotics, where animals are crowded together, being raised in unhygienic conditions and being given low levels of
antibiotics all the time to prevent an outbreak of disease, that is the stuff fda has to stop. host: a call from nebraska on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. we're involved with tomatoes. all the rules are kind of okay, we spend a ton of money getting ready for all of this stuff. i am not afraid to eat off the floor in my facility. but when it leaves us, it goes to the grocery stores and is put on an open shelf. some kid can walk in with a cold or walks and after he was playing with his dog and all the sudden it is my tomato that is in trouble.
have foodoing to safety rules, i am not sure why it makes a difference if you have 10 million tomatoes or to have tens meadows. -- tend to metals. why shouldn't everyone in the system have to play by the same rules-- ten tomatoes. why shouldn't everyone in the system have to play by the same rules? host: if you want to get involved in this conversation, the numbers are on the screen. guest: two critz points. retail food safety -- great points. retail food safety is incredibly important. what comes into the grocery store may becomedecontaminated n it gets there, and may be contaminated after it comes into the store.
often retailers are regulated more at the local level by health departments. it is important for us to be taking a look at whether retail food safety is adequate. i know fda does that periodically. the states are doing it constantly. retailers are very conscious of their role here. there is more they could be doing. during a recall, there are some grocery chains that will notify consumers. if you have a loyalty card, there also tracking your purchases. that is for their own marketing. some grocery stores will use that information to call you. there are other grocery stores that cannot do that, and they should be. -- do not do that, and they
should be. i want to touch on the small firms issue. -- farms issue. the law does create an exemption for small farms. the definition is still being worked out, but we're talking about farm sutter selling direct to consumers. -- farmers that are sellingd irectly directly to consumers, s farmers' markets. you have to a certain amount of annual revenue. i think the latest estimate was $500,000, you have to be below that. it is not something that the consumer advocacy community wanted to say, that there will be a lot of exemptions from
this. whether your producing 10,000 meadows, 10 million tomatoes, or 10 tomatoes, you still have the ability to make people sick. it is wonderful to support small farmers. the organization were the work has created food day. -- where i work has created food day, supporting local, seasonalaal eating. we need to be careful but we're not exempting to many small farmers, because they can make people sick. host: a tweet -- talk to us about the added cost of these two new proposals, and who is going to bear that?
guest: the cost should be minimal, especially when we compare it with a cost of the food borne illness. not to mention the kind of insurance costs the passed on to everyone when we have hundreds of thousands of people hospitalized each year from food borne illness. there are not all just staying at home, missing work. a lot of these people are becoming hospitalized and some of them die. these are extreme cost to the economy. the costs estimated for the role, 100th of 1¢ per dollar of value. peror the rule, 1/100 of 1¢ dollar of value. we're going to be making up for
it and the number of people who are not going to be getting sick. -- in the number of people who are not going to be getting sick. host: our next call comes from jerry and illinois. our line for independents. caller: do you work for the fda? guest: it is center for science and public interest. caller: how many people in your organization actually get out into the field, and the farms, these food-processing plants to see what is going on? guest: and is something that i know that people on my team -- we tried to get out as much as we can to visit processing plants, to visit farms. it is important to know how
things are being done in order to comment on them intelligently. part of that is going there and seeing it. i myself have visited a turkey processing plant and the last year or so. -- in the last you're so. it is also talking to the groups represent farmers. -- year or so. it is also talking to groups that represent farmers. it is not representative of the entire thing. we do recognize and try to be really conscious of the challenges and struggles facing farmers and businesses when it comes to producing safe food. it is irresponsibility we believe they have to bear -- a responsibility we believe they have to bear.
host:a tweet, so in exchange for my loyalty, grocers will notify me when their food isn't any good? great policy. a call an airline for democrats. -- on our line for democrats. caller: you've been very helpful in explaining the policies for small farmers. i may farmer in rhode island. -- am a farmer in rhode island. i did have a question for you about a product. i am thinking of using that to wash my vegetables to add that extra protection for the crop. i grow butternut squash,
tomatoes. i do not do a lot of spinach and crops like that, but i am conscious about washing my crops. i wanted to ask if i use something like this, if that would be a good idea. guest: i cannot comment on a particular wash. i can say that fda should be able to the advise you whether it is through agricultural extension or fda formally about how to best maximize the safety on your farm. it sounds like this particular caller is doing all the right things. part of what is involved in these rules and food safety generally is identifying the risks, training yourself and the people who work on your firm to know what they're supposed to be looking for. being aware of animal nutrition,
for example. we know the wild and domesticated -- intrusion, for example. we know that wild and domesticated animals can play a role. host: this is from the cdc outbreak response team, talking about multistate food borne outbreak investigations. they defined l.s., when two or illnessople get the same l.s from food or drink. back to the phones. susan and frederick, maryland. -- in frederick, maryland.
caller: how is the fda going to ensure that states and other resources consistently and effectively investigate across the board? will there be an attendanindepet certification? guest: these are things we will be watching very closely. enforcement is one of the keys to these rules. preventing something is useful and is exactly what we want to be doing. we want to make sure that everyone is doing what they need to do to prevent illness. fda will be working with the states. what the partnership will look like has yet to be determined. whether there will be third- party auditors, for example, is
the rule for another day. -- a rule for another day. a lot of these enforcement mechanisms will come in later discussions with the agency. it is clear the one thing fta will need is resources. we cannot see this extreme across-the-board budget cuts to public health agencies. we've got too much at stake. what is critical is looking at the budget two years from now. we've got a very long comment. -- comment period. the produce rule is over 500 pages. it is going to take some time for these proposed rules to go through. notice and comment to go through hearings and become final rules
and become implemented. host: are we ata point a point e we can talk about enforcement? guest: some of that is already enshrined in previous law. and that is that it is illegal to sell food that is adulterated on the market, that you know is adulterated. their civil and criminal penalties. -- there are civil and criminal penalties. you can face criminal penalties. the exemptions piece is really interesting care when it comes to enforcement.
we have these exemptions for small farmers and small processors. they are qualified exemptions. fda has a reason to believe that your either involved in an outbreak are producing a product that is not safe, they can withdraw that exemption. these are some of the enforcement tools that the agency can use to make sure that everyone is really telling the line here. host: a tweet, can you explain the fruit labeling what the numbers mean? guest: there's a variety of labels can be applied to products. numbers are generally a way for the individual packer, not necessarily the farmer, but the distributor of the fruit or produce item to distinguish between lots, and sometimes where they came from on the
farm. it is hard for consumers to use that information to know what form provided their food. there are other labels on food better useful for consumers. -- that are useful for consumers,, such as country of origin labels. sometimes it may have a real relationship to safety, such as when there is an import alert. consumers will wish to use the labeling information to say, i am going to avoid partisan this country. -- buying foods from this country. sometimes labels provide useful information. at cspi, we are huge proponents
of better labeling. for food safety, it is hard to label something. it is all supposed to be safe. host: you bring up food imported from overseas. will these new rules apply to food that comes in from overseas, growth overseas are processed? -- grown overseas or processed? guest: yes, it will. it is a global marketplace, which was not anticipated when the applause of the fda were written. -- laws of the fda were written. we're importing vast amounts of our produce. we cannot inspect all but at the border for the kinds of
contamination we're worried about. we can look at palettes and shipping containers. but that tells us nothing about the bacterial contamination that may be on the product inside. it is important that these rules are extended over into our foreign suppliers so that we can be sure that the food that is packed and shipped to the u.s. is just as safe. host: rodney is on our line for independents. klein.on with sarah caller: i would like to ask you why as a watchdog organization you have not delve into the fact of the relationship between the fda and monsanto, and the fact that so much soil is being put in all of our food, -- soy is being put in all our food.
guest: we have heard complaints about fda, particularly michael taylor, the deputy commissioner for foods at fda. mike taylor has had a relationship with the government for a very long time. at usda and accuse fda and monsanto. people in my office have been working on it for 20 years. and have never seen any reason to believe that there has been an inappropriate relationship or some sort of inappropriate amount of influence being exerted by monsanto. mike taylor is dedicated to public health. we believe the agency is working as best it can to
prevent food borne illness. there are issues, certainly, about the kinds of products being produced for consumers on these highly processed foods, foods that contain a lot of soy and other ingredients but not as naturally occurring in those foods -- that are not as naturally occuring in those foods. having said that, i do not believe that is being information being withheld by the fda because of that relationship. the best way to bring that number, 48 million illnesses a year, down. host: well margaret hamburg have
to go to congress and explain doese new rules, olr car can fd it by themselves? guest: fda was instructed to do these rules. there will be public hearings to give everyone an opportunity to tease out some of these issues. congress was clear two years ago when it passed the food safety modernization act that it was time for the fda to be updated. these rules are the first two steps in getting us there. host: esther in hollywood, florida, on our line for independents. caller: you do a wonderful job.
my concern -- the chronic toxicity. there was a report on brian williams about the arsenic level. they discovered 60 times the allowable limit in water, rice pudding, baby food. it is all over. this is from pesticides. it is never going anywhere. i have been buying organic rice cakes. i get a organic food. and there is chronic toxicity
occurring in levels of foods. there does not seem to be any public awareness. guest: esther makes a good point, there are things that bridge that gap from acute illness, things caused by bacteria, salmonella, et cetera -- and yet there are not those things over here that consumers are choosing, such as food dyes and sodium. then there are those things in the middle. arsenic in rise or apple juice, mercury into now -- in tuna -- these are naturally occurring or have been exacerbated by the way the food is grown or processed in this country. consumers should be aware, so
when we see reports about arsenic in rice, for example, but not necessarily horrified or scared to eat the food. rice is still a perfectly fine commodity for consumers to enjoy. if they're eating it in sufficient levels -- multiple amounts of rice, multiple times of day, perhaps we would be more concerned about the residual effects from arsenic. at this point, we're not unduly concerned. it is important for consumers who may be vulnerable, pregnant, young children -- but there are extra careful when it comes to food safety.
-- that their extra careful when it comes to food safety. taking extra precautions, like foods toertain foodre-heating n steaming them before enjoying them. host: independce daence day twe, why won't fda give us gmo labelling? many countries have it. to these rules cover genetically modified organisms? guest: no. they are not covered. i do not personally work on genetically modified foods, although we have a program that covers that at cspi.
generally, cspi has not seen a reason to doubt the safety of these genetically modified crops at this time. we're watching it very closely. labeling for these crops or ingredients is complicated. we have foods that are highly processed that may contain one or more genetically engineered ingredients. if we do not see a safety reason, we're putting a label on something that may not make a difference. we like to see labeling reserve for things that are very important for consumers health. genetically engineered products are considered to be a farming practice. there are people at cspi working on it all the time to no more than me. -- who know more than me. host: a call from idaho, our
line for republicans. caller: i am glad you're focusing on the sodium and processed foods. one concern i have on produce, the local communities are pumping their sewage back down into the water tables. they're spreading solids on the farmland for fertilizer. what is being done about that? guest: the new rules will address -- as proposed, farmers will have to be monitoring the water to make sure that bacterial levels are appropriate. there'll be limits on what kinds of bio solids and